2010 Mustang Vs 2010 Camaro
11/30/08, 08:51 PM
#85
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
12/2/08, 02:24 PM
#86
For those worried about the "huge" difference in V6 models, consider this:
Camaro V6
- 300hp @ 6400rpm
- 270tq @ 5200rpm
Mustang V6
- 210hp @ 5300rpm
- 240tq @ 3500rpm
If one were to design high rpm-power cams for the Mustang's 4.0L the numbers would be much closer. We can't forget the 4.0L V6 is basically a truck motor with its low rpm-high torque numbers. My thought is that the V6 Camaro is more a stab at the import V6 crowd than the base Mustang crowd.
Camaro V6
- 300hp @ 6400rpm
- 270tq @ 5200rpm
Mustang V6
- 210hp @ 5300rpm
- 240tq @ 3500rpm
If one were to design high rpm-power cams for the Mustang's 4.0L the numbers would be much closer. We can't forget the 4.0L V6 is basically a truck motor with its low rpm-high torque numbers. My thought is that the V6 Camaro is more a stab at the import V6 crowd than the base Mustang crowd.
12/2/08, 02:59 PM
#87
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For those worried about the "huge" difference in V6 models, consider this:
Camaro V6
- 300hp @ 6400rpm
- 270tq @ 5200rpm
Mustang V6
- 210hp @ 5300rpm
- 240tq @ 3500rpm
If one were to design high rpm-power cams for the Mustang's 4.0L the numbers would be much closer. We can't forget the 4.0L V6 is basically a truck motor with its low rpm-high torque numbers. My thought is that the V6 Camaro is more a stab at the import V6 crowd than the base Mustang crowd.
Camaro V6
- 300hp @ 6400rpm
- 270tq @ 5200rpm
Mustang V6
- 210hp @ 5300rpm
- 240tq @ 3500rpm
If one were to design high rpm-power cams for the Mustang's 4.0L the numbers would be much closer. We can't forget the 4.0L V6 is basically a truck motor with its low rpm-high torque numbers. My thought is that the V6 Camaro is more a stab at the import V6 crowd than the base Mustang crowd.
12/3/08, 12:49 PM
#88
3500?
12/3/08, 01:56 PM
#89
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Mustang premium is the only way to go, as far as the Mustang is concerned. If I was forced to buy a V6 the Camaro is the only way to go. I think that the current 05-09 base model Mustang was kinda pathetic, this 3.5 should have been in the Mustang in 05' never mind 10'.
This is a huge blunder on Ford's part, many non-loyal entry level buyers that do their research will realize that the extra $1500 or so is worth every penny as the base model Camaro is superior to the upcoming base model Mustang. I just hope that Ford is still able to get the 3.5 and 5.0 in production without further delay, I kinda have a feeling that the Camaro will be not only the performance leader of the new pony wars but also the top seller as the price gap isn't as big as the performance gap.
This is a huge blunder on Ford's part, many non-loyal entry level buyers that do their research will realize that the extra $1500 or so is worth every penny as the base model Camaro is superior to the upcoming base model Mustang. I just hope that Ford is still able to get the 3.5 and 5.0 in production without further delay, I kinda have a feeling that the Camaro will be not only the performance leader of the new pony wars but also the top seller as the price gap isn't as big as the performance gap.
12/3/08, 02:31 PM
#91
Needs to be more Astony
found this by searching google.
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/show...uction+figures
Year: Mustang/Camaro
64:*121,583/NA
65: 559,451/NA
66: 607,568/NA
67: 474,121/*220,906
68: 317,404/ 235,147
68: 299,824/ 243,065
69: 299,824/ 243,065
70: 190,727/ 124,901
71:*149,678/*114,630
72: 125,093/ 114,630 (not a typo!)
73: 134,867/ 96,751
74:*385,993/ 151,008
75: 188,575/ 145,770
76: 187,567/ 182,959
77: 153,173/ 218,858
78: 192,410/ 272,631
79:*369,936/ 282,571
80: 271,322/ 152,005
81: 181,552/ 126,139
82: 130,418/*189,747
83: 120,873/ 154,318
84: 135,678/ 261,591
85: 156,514/ 180,018
86: 224,410/ 192,219
87: 159,145/ 137,760
88: 211,225/ 96,275
89: 209,769/ 110,850
90: 128,189/ 35,048
91: 98,737/ 101,316
92: 79,280/ 70,712
93: 114,228/ *39,755
94:*123,198/ 119,934
95: 185,986/ 122,844
96: 126,483/ 66,827
97: 100,254/ 95,812
98: 170,642/ 77,198
99: 126,067/ 42,098
00: 218,525/ 45,417
01: 155,162/ 29,009
from glancing over it, it seems camaro outsold the mustang in 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1991.
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/show...uction+figures
Year: Mustang/Camaro
64:*121,583/NA
65: 559,451/NA
66: 607,568/NA
67: 474,121/*220,906
68: 317,404/ 235,147
68: 299,824/ 243,065
69: 299,824/ 243,065
70: 190,727/ 124,901
71:*149,678/*114,630
72: 125,093/ 114,630 (not a typo!)
73: 134,867/ 96,751
74:*385,993/ 151,008
75: 188,575/ 145,770
76: 187,567/ 182,959
77: 153,173/ 218,858
78: 192,410/ 272,631
79:*369,936/ 282,571
80: 271,322/ 152,005
81: 181,552/ 126,139
82: 130,418/*189,747
83: 120,873/ 154,318
84: 135,678/ 261,591
85: 156,514/ 180,018
86: 224,410/ 192,219
87: 159,145/ 137,760
88: 211,225/ 96,275
89: 209,769/ 110,850
90: 128,189/ 35,048
91: 98,737/ 101,316
92: 79,280/ 70,712
93: 114,228/ *39,755
94:*123,198/ 119,934
95: 185,986/ 122,844
96: 126,483/ 66,827
97: 100,254/ 95,812
98: 170,642/ 77,198
99: 126,067/ 42,098
00: 218,525/ 45,417
01: 155,162/ 29,009
from glancing over it, it seems camaro outsold the mustang in 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1991.
Last edited by Knight; 12/3/08 at 02:33 PM.
12/3/08, 03:40 PM
#93
Needs to be more Astony
12/3/08, 03:57 PM
#96
Needs to be more Astony
12/3/08, 05:03 PM
#98
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
(Edited to add color)
Don't mind me, just messing around with those 2 pics above!
Here, just watch the banana dance for your amusement...
Don't mind me, just messing around with those 2 pics above!
Here, just watch the banana dance for your amusement...
Last edited by Mas35NYR; 12/3/08 at 05:32 PM.
12/3/08, 05:43 PM
#99
I dunno... the Camaro and Mustang were both redesigned in '94 and the Mustang didn't get a new power plant that year either...
I hadnt seen that before. Thats funny right there. TOO retro. Who the hell would want to look WAY down there to see the gauges?! And talk about an aftermarket nightmare for stereo installations.
